Hank Kingsley
Undefeated
HEY, THAT ONLY HAPPENED ONE TIME AND IT WAS TO DETROIT SO NOBODY GOT HURT!
Just sayin'.....
HEY, THAT ONLY HAPPENED ONE TIME AND IT WAS TO DETROIT SO NOBODY GOT HURT!
Yeah Hank nailed it. He caught the ball and it was over or on the goal line, it's a TD just like when a RB stretches the ball over the goal line and is then pushed back.
I get that. But then why isn't it a TD when a player gets pushed out of bounds in the endzone in the same manner?
I get that. But then why isn't it a TD when a player gets pushed out of bounds in the endzone in the same manner?
Because OB prevails? Just like on a sideline?
That must be it. It just seems counter to when a catch becomes a catch to me.
Two feet down in the endzone is not required for forward progress in a TD scenario. As long as the standard of breaking the plane of the goal with possession was met it's a TD provided the player maintains control and comes down in bounds in the field of play.I got one that maybe someone can explain to me because it didn't make sense when I saw it last weekend. In the TB-NE game Brady throws a TD to Hogan at the goal line. The thing is that Hogan catches the ball while he jumps up in the air and then is pushed out of the endzone to about the half yard line by a defender. His feet don't come down until he is on the 1/2 yard line so isn't that technically where the ball should have been spotted? If you get pushed out of bounds before your feet come down it's not a TD so what is the difference here?
I couldn't find a GIF of the play but if you forward the video in the link to the 2:00 mark you'll see what I'm talking about.
Watch New England Patriots vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers [10/05/2017] - NFL.com
If you're talking about the Gurley play from last week, it's because he lost control of the ball (i.e. fumbled it) before it crossed the plane of the goal line *and* before his foot landed OB. The replay clearly showed that, and the correct call was made by rule on that play.How is crossing the goaline not considered a TD? It broke the plane.. Isn't the ball supposed to be considered "dead' once that happens?
No one has any thoughts on this?What I thought was odd, they weren't in an officials review to review a fumble, it was in review to see if the TD called on the field stood or didn't stand.
Usually if they are looking at one aspect in review, they don't look at another. For instance, if a player was called for targeting and it gets overturned under an official review, if they see a fumble that wasn't called on the field, and was clearly recovered by the defense, do they change possession or does the HC have to use a challenge for possession?
If you're talking about the Gurley play from last week, it's because he lost control of the ball (i.e. fumbled it) before it crossed the plane of the goal line *and* before his foot landed OB. The replay clearly showed that, and the correct call was made by rule on that play.
No one has any thoughts on this?
TBT - I don't think most NFL coaches understand exactly what can and what cannot be looked at.
No one has any thoughts on this?
TBT - I don't think most NFL coaches understand exactly what can and what cannot be looked at.
I just wonder if they rule it a touchback if the refs had ruled Gurley short of the goal instead of a Touchdown on a Rams challenge?In this case they were reviewing a TD so obviously controlling the ball past the goal line is a part of that review.
Yes. And the runner can pick it up and keep going.
Oh yeah, the tuck rule sucks too.. Everyone knows that.
Uh, because the play is over the moment he's tackled! Do you really want things to count after the play is over?okay, so let's say we have the same scenario but instead, the runner is tackled and the ball comes out when his elbow hits the ground - he is then ruled down by contact and the ball is no longer live
what the hell sense does that make?
Uh, because the play is over the moment he's tackled! Do you really want things to count after the play is over?
The difference is down by contact or not. Once down by contact, the play is over. Period. I'm not really sure what you're so confused about. If a defender hits a ball carrier and that contact is the impetus for the ball carrier going to the ground, the play is over the very moment something other than the ball carrier's hand or foot touches the ground. Nothing after that matters.no, both players are going down to the ground, his elbow hits the turf with the ball coming out, the play is over
if he isn't tackled, his elbow hits the turf and the ball comes out, it is a fumble
what's the difference?
The difference is down by contact or not. Once down by contact, the play is over. Period. I'm not really sure what you're so confused about. If a defender hits a ball carrier and that contact is the impetus for the ball carrier going to the ground, the play is over the very moment something other than the ball carrier's hand or foot touches the ground. Nothing after that matters.
Your original statement was that the ground cannot cause a fumble, and that is incorrect because it absolutely can. You can not like it, but that's a different discussion.